Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

As a mom and a policymaker, I know how important it is to protect the economic security of pregnant workers and working families; yet 41 years after the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Federal law falls short of guaranteeing that all pregnant workers have reasonable workplace accommodations to protect their health and the health of their baby.

Reasonable accommodations can range from providing seating, water, and light duty to excusing pregnant workers from tasks that involve dangerous substances. But when pregnant workers do not have access to the accommodations they need, they are at risk of losing their job, being denied a promotion, or not being hired in the first place.

Unfortunately, pregnant workers suffer workplace discrimination at alarming rates. According to a survey from the National Partnership for Women and Families, more than 60 percent of the women have experienced pregnancy discrimination on the job. Women of color are overrepresented in low-wage, physically demanding jobs and are, therefore, disproportionately harmed by a lack of access to reasonable accommodation.

Last year, I chaired an Education and Labor Committee hearing on pregnancy discrimination. We heard very compelling testimony demonstrating that far too many pregnant workers are denied access to reasonable workplace accommodations despite the existing Federal law providing for equal treatment on the job.

Now my home State of Oregon is helping to lead the way by passing bipartisan legislation that requires reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. The new law has protected pregnant women and also provided certainty to the business community. But we need to make sure that all pregnant workers, regardless of where they live, can access the protections they need to stay safe and healthy in the workplace.

The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is our opportunity to address pregnancy discrimination and protect the health, well-being, and economic security of pregnant and parenting workers and their families. By clarifying the right of pregnant workers to fair treatment in the workplace, we will finally guarantee that pregnant workers get the accommodations they need without facing fear of discrimination or retaliation.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Nadler for their leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Women's Law Center in support of this legislation. September 11, 2020.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Women's Law Center, we urge you to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694) and vote no on any motion to recommit. The National Women's Law Center (``the Center'') has worked for over 45 years to advance and protect women's equality and opportunity--and since its founding has fought for the rights of pregnant women in the workplace. For the last eight years, the Center has been a leader in advocating for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and for pregnancy accommodation protections in states across the country. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would clarify the law for employers and employees alike, requiring employers to make reasonable accommodations for limitations arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, just as they already do for disabilities. Providing accommodations ensures that women can work safely while pregnant instead of being pushed out of work at a time when their families need their income the most.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant workers were all too often denied medically needed accommodations-- including simple accommodations like a stool to sit on during a long shift or a bottle of water at a workstation. As the United States enters the sixth month of COVID-19 lockdown, the need for clarity regarding employers' obligations to provide accommodations for pregnant workers has only increased. Across the country, as new information emerges about the risks COVID-19 poses during pregnancy, pregnant workers are urgently seeking, and far too often being denied, accommodations like proper personal protective equipment, telework, moving to a less crowded work area or changing start times so as not to risk riding public transit during peak hours. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act uses an already-familiar framework modeled on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to ensure that when such a request is made, employers and employees can engage in an interactive process to determine whether the employee's pregnancy related limitations can be reasonably accommodated without an undue hardship to the employer. This will help ensure that employees are not forced to choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will close gaps and clarify ambiguities in the law that have left too many pregnant workers unprotected for too long. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), passed in 1978, guarantees the right not to be treated adversely at work because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and the right to be treated at least as well as other employees ``not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.'' Unfortunately, many courts interpreted the PDA narrowly and allowed employers to refuse to accommodate workers with medical needs arising out of pregnancy, even when they routinely accommodated other physical limitations. In Young v. UPS, the Supreme Court held that when an employer accommodates workers who are similar to pregnant workers in their ability to work, it cannot refuse to accommodate pregnant workers who need it simply because it ``is more expensive or less convenient'' to accommodate pregnant women too. The Young decision was an important victory for pregnant workers, but the standard it set out still left many important questions unanswered and created uncertainty for employers and employees about when exactly the PDA requires pregnancy accommodations. In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. However, courts have consistently held that pregnancy is not a disability. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would fill the holes left in these protections with a common-ground and commonsense approach that ensures pregnant workers are accommodated when the accommodations they need are reasonable and do not pose an undue hardship to employers.

Accommodating pregnant workers is not only good for working women and families, it is good for business. Moreover, today, women make up about half the workforce. More women are continuing to work while they are pregnant, through later stages of pregnancy. For example, two-thirds of women who had their first child between 2006 and 2008 worked during pregnancy, and 88 percent of these first-time mothers worked into their last trimester. When employers accommodate pregnant workers, businesses reap the benefits of avoiding the costs of turnover and keeping experienced employees on the job. And since pregnancy is temporary, pregnancy accommodations are, by definition, short-term; many of these accommodations are low and no cost.

The time is now to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Thirty states and the District of Columbia have enacted provisions explicitly granting pregnant employees the right to accommodations at work, from Massachusetts, New York, and California, to South Carolina, Utah, Nebraska, West Virginia and Tennessee. Millions of pregnant workers have benefited from these protections, but a pregnant employee's ability to work safely should not depend on where she lives.

We strongly urge you to support pregnant workers by voting for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and rejecting any motion to recommit. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Emily J. Martin,

Vice President for Education & Workplace Justice, National Women's Law Center.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, at the Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 2694 earlier this week, the bill's sponsor, Chairman Nadler, said it is not necessary to incorporate into H.R. 2694 the Civil Rights Act's provision that protects religious organizations. He stated that because H.R. 2694 does not repeal this provision, it will still be effective if H.R. 2694 becomes law.

Color me skeptical; I strongly disagree. H.R. 2694 will create legal jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is superfluous. What would be the harm in including the Civil Rights Act provision in H.R. 2694? At worst, the provision will be duplicative with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or employers.

Let's remember that the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, better known as the ADA, includes a religious organization protection similar to the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA provision has caused no harm.

My conclusion is that the key sponsors of H.R. 2694 are saying the quiet part out loud in their opposition to the religious organization protection in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At the Rules Committee hearing this week, Chairman Scott said the religious organization protection should not be included in H.R. 2694 because it is overinclusive and would provide too much protection. Is the chairman saying that the existing Civil Rights Act protection for religious organizations should also be repealed? Again, this is a provision that has been in law for 55 years.

As I have stated previously, the longstanding Civil Rights Act religious organization protection should be added to H.R. 2694. At worst, it would do no harm, and, at best, it will prevent a religious organization from being required to violate its faith.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source